California lawmakers on Monday cleared Assembly Bill 2469, sending a second water-disclosure package to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk after he vetoed nearly the same measure last year. [1] The bill, by San Mateo Democrat Diane Papan, bars local governments from approving new or expanded data centers unless the developer discloses its water plans and covers the full cost of any new pipes, treatment or storage. [1] It now joins her Assembly Bill 2619, which the Senate passed 30-9 last week, requiring operators to report estimated or actual water sources and use — under penalty of perjury — when seeking or renewing a business license. [1]

Friday's paper tracked the lobbying fight before the votes: millions spent, trade groups carrying the load for Google, OpenAI, Meta and Microsoft, and Newsom's 2025 veto of a water-disclosure bill on the ground that he was "reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements … without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology." [1] That sentence is still the test. Papan, asked whether the do-over will survive his desk, said "the opportunity for leadership has not gone away. If anything, it has been amplified." [1]

The real fight is opacity, not forms. Iris Stewart-Frey of Santa Clara University, who led a study this year on how rarely developers disclose water use, told CalMatters the state is in "a phase of heightened concern because of the rapid evolution of the industry — and the lack of transparency." [1] Monterey Park voters approved a permanent data-center ban in June. Coachella's city council approved its own ban last week. Tulare County is pausing. [1] A Public Policy Institute of California survey found a majority of residents oppose construction in their areas. [1]

Stewart-Frey tied the national attention on a Gilroy fight to the same gap: "the data center industry in California has not been releasing actual water use data." [1] Papan's pitch to developers was blunt. "I don't think we should be eliminating anything without sufficient knowledge about what their needs are," she said. "Help us help you, because if you go into an area that doesn't have sufficient water supply for you, it's not going to work." [1] Disclosure, in that frame, is the alternative to the ban wave, not a substitute for it.

Khara Boender of the Data Center Coalition said reporting tied to licenses "should apply to other similar commercial and industrial users." [1] The League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the Rural County Representatives of California opposed AB 2469's approval bar as undermining local permitting. [1] Santa Clara Valley Water District supported both bills; Joshua Golka wrote that more water-use information could help the wholesaler plan for actual needs. [1] Michael Kiparsky of UC Berkeley called the package "necessary, but not sufficient," noting senators cut a guidance mandate for state agencies that an Assembly analysis priced at $2 million the first year. [1] He wants a state strike team for small towns and a single public posting of the data. "Data centers are not bad or good," he said. The question is whether a given mix of land, water and energy is the right spot for one. [1] Papan said the main goal was the data. Newsom now has to decide whether last year's reluctance still holds after the bans.

-- DARA OSEI, London